TY - JOUR
T1 - Corrigendum to “Acknowledging attributes that enable the career academic nurse to thrive in the tertiary education sector
T2 - A qualitative systematic review” [Nurse Educ. Today 45, October 2016, 212–218] (S0260691716301575) (10.1016/j.nedt.2016.08.010))
AU - Wyllie, Aileen
AU - DiGiacomo, Michelle
AU - Jackson, Debra
AU - Davidson, Patricia
AU - Phillips, Jane
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017
PY - 2018/3
Y1 - 2018/3
N2 - The authors regret that some references were incorrectly made in the original article and wish to note the correct references below: 1. “The extracted data was coded, categorised and then reduced into overarching themes to ensure that the data remained linked to the context. The findings were extracted using different colours for each study so that continual reference was made to the original article to synthesise ideas and provide new insights” (Murray et al., 2014).2. “For example, the specific qualitative approach of some studies was not always made explicit and a lack of information in the earlier articles made it difficult to judge credibility of recruitment or interview processes” (Murray et al., 2014).3. “As well as increasing the likelihood of bias when interpreting the data, a knowing relationship with the researcher may have implications for the openness and honesty of participants during interviews. If there is a potential bias, researchers need to describe how this is managed” (Murray et al., 2014).The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
AB - The authors regret that some references were incorrectly made in the original article and wish to note the correct references below: 1. “The extracted data was coded, categorised and then reduced into overarching themes to ensure that the data remained linked to the context. The findings were extracted using different colours for each study so that continual reference was made to the original article to synthesise ideas and provide new insights” (Murray et al., 2014).2. “For example, the specific qualitative approach of some studies was not always made explicit and a lack of information in the earlier articles made it difficult to judge credibility of recruitment or interview processes” (Murray et al., 2014).3. “As well as increasing the likelihood of bias when interpreting the data, a knowing relationship with the researcher may have implications for the openness and honesty of participants during interviews. If there is a potential bias, researchers need to describe how this is managed” (Murray et al., 2014).The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85037578163&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85037578163&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.11.031
DO - 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.11.031
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 29241589
AN - SCOPUS:85037578163
SN - 0260-6917
VL - 62
SP - 164
JO - Nurse Education Today
JF - Nurse Education Today
ER -